SMITA MOHANTY Vs. AMBIKA PRASAD MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miss Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client is plaintiff in C.S. no.246 of 2021 in Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela. Her client applied for injunction on threat of dispossession. By impugned order, prayer for interim order was rejected. Inter alia, sec. 80 (2) in Code of Civil Procedure was relied upon in impugned order. It is illegal and therefore, her client has moved Court.

(2.) On query from Court, she submits, though State is party in the suit but in the application only defendant nos.7 and 8 were made respondent nos.1 and 2 and order sought against them. As such, there was no question of rejection on the ground of notice of suit to the Government.

(3.) The interim application is annexure-2 in the petition. It reflects parties to be plaintiff and two opposite parties as respondents. Miss Mishra, prays for adjournment to satisfy that interim application in a suit with several defendants can be made by impleading only some of them.